On 10/14/2025, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 10/14/25 10:51 AM, Liu Ying wrote: >> Hi Marek, > > Hi, > >> On 10/11/2025, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> This large series adds support for the i.MX95 display pipeline, including >>> DPU, DSI and LVDS support. Most of the components extend existin drivers, >>> DPU is added into DC driver, DSI into iMX93 DSI driver, LVDS into iMX8MP >>> LDB. Pixel link and pixel interleaver drivers are reworked to work as two >>> independent channels, since there seems to be no dependency between their >>> two channels. The i.MX95 DTSI changes are also included. >>> >>> Since the DPU chapter is missing from the i.MX95 RM, this is based on the >>> NXP downstream kernel fork code and there might be issues. >>> >>> Majority of this series are DPU patches on top of the DC driver, I tried >>> to keep them separate and easy to review. Later part adds LVDS and DSI >>> support, this can be split into separate series. >> >> Like you said that this patch series is large, please split it. >> Also, make sure proper maintainers are in TO or CC lists for each patch(b4 >> tool should do that automatically for you), e.g., patch 37 should be sent >> to Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> according to MAINTAINERS. > > I had to trim down the CC list for this series, it was enormous. > > I wanted to put this whole thing on the list first, before I start splitting > it up. > > For starters, I think I can send these separately:
Before discussing how to split, a bigger question is that is it fine to support both i.MX8qxp DC and i.MX95 DC in the same imx8_dc_drm module? Separate modules look more reasonable to me, considering the fact that there are quite a lot difference between the two DCs. > > - drm/imx: dc: Use bulk clock I don't think this one is needed because reach relevant block has only one clock. > - drm/imx: dc: Rework dc_subdev_get_id() to drop ARRAY_SIZE() use It doesn't seem that this one is needed either, if we use separate modules. > - drm/imx: dc: Rename i.MX8QXP specific Link IDs TBH, I'm not a big fan of adding LINK_ID_x_MXy to enum dc_link_id, since the members may have the same value and it's kind of a mess considering future SoCs. > - drm/imx: Add more RGB swizzling options This one seems ok. > - dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: fsl,irqsteer: Add i.MX95 support Ditto. > > Then in second round, probably all these clean ups: > > - drm/imx: dc: *: Pass struct dc_*_subdev_match_data via OF match data Same, doesn't seem needed, if we use separate modules. > > And then rest afterward. > > What do you think ? I kind of opt to separate modules. Maybe, to save some code, an additional module can be introduced to wrap common part as helpers, plus some callback magics, like fg->dc_fg_cfg_videomode(). -- Regards, Liu Ying
